[ad_1]
in the the latest episode of Into the Ether, Vitalik Buterin appears to discuss everything about Ethereum. The Ethereum governance model is one of the topics discussed. Eric Conner Buterin questioned the models of chain governance and how Ethereum's governance compared to them.
Underrated current governance model: Vitalik Buterin
Buterin says that the current Ethereum governance model is working quite well, given the problems on which he has guided the protocol.
I actually think that Ethereum's governance is underestimated at this point. Because it's not something we can give a cool name to and advertise. And honestly, moderation is a less exciting argument for people than chain votes, maximum engagement of coin holders or immutability. As a community, we have never tended to look for extremes. But in reality, on the one hand, people complain about governance as a process. But on the other hand, in terms of concrete results achieved by the Ethereum governance, it's really good.
He implemented emission reductions. Reducing emissions seems to be something most people agree with. […] When there was a crisis in 2016, DOS attacks allowed to implement, deploy, stack, test and deploy a hard fork in less than 6 days. It's not something we want to repeat, but it's clearly something we can do if we really want to.
When there was a bug in Constantinople, he managed to delay the junction for a few hours. You realize what you can reasonably wish to achieve with the governance of a protocol, which is to make the changes desired by the users and not the others. The only thing it does not achieve is the settlement of disputes, the recovery of funds or things in that category. In addition, decentralized funding of public interest projects is another problem.
Not interested in arbitration
He adds that these two factors can cause more harm than good. In the context of dispute resolution and fund recovery, he states that you are opening a "Pandora's Box". Where can you draw the line if the transactions lose their immutability? He also says that decentralized funding of public good projects is easily playable – in an anonymous context, how can you distinguish a wealthy Ethereum holder or someone who legitimately attempts to do good?
Join CCN for $ 9.99 per month and get an ad-free version of CCN, including discounts for future events and services. Support our journalists today. Click here to sign up.
Later in the episode, Buterin talks about privacy in Ethereum. He says he's currently working on a fix that will make it more difficult to determine if the same portfolio interacts with more decentralized applications. The host claims that he uses a different Ethereum portfolio for every application that he uses, in order to protect his privacy. They both agreed that privacy is paramount to the long-term viability of Ethereum.
With respect to Ethereum's development funding, Buterin supports its efforts to allow portfolio developers to charge a fee of 1 gwei per transaction through their software. He says it will bring in $ 2 million a year, which is a lot more than nothing. In looking at other options for financing long-term development, he said there was only one option: "inflation-based financing".
Funding for inflation as a last resort
If everything ends up being insufficient, practically the only option is a kind of financing of inflation. I look carefully at Zcash as an alternative. The Zcash community has very similar values to Ethereum in many cases, but it is willing to be more aggressive in making decisions a little more centralized. […] He decides where go 20% of Zcash's inflation pool. And so far, this is about the Zcash Foundation and other developers. And I know they are interested in doing something else. I would be opposed to something that goes directly into a centralized organization. Personally, I would be in favor of something like that, but I would rather spend the funds in something like Gitcoin.
The other major strength of the interview is that Buterin considers that the current size of the Ethereum blockchain is a serious bottleneck problem. He considers that only two sizing solutions are viable as regards the size of the blockchain.
One is to change the way smart contracts exist to adopt a "stateless" model. The other is to charge the rent for smart contracts during a storage-based transaction. However, he says the latter option has a serious vulnerability to attack. Motivated parties could attack the new model by generating a large number of transactions inducing storage.
[ad_2]
Source link
